The fiduciary duty was to eBay. Which means eBay wanted craigslist to make more money, either through ads, data sales or both. Craigslist is so comparably benevolent, any additional revenue would have exploited its users.
The lawsuit also involved reversing the staggered board elections craigslist put in place specifically to prevent eBay from gaining access to confidential material.
Both the share dilution and board procedural change were done in response to ebay’s surprise launch of an attempted direct competitor to craigslist.
Both sides claimed victory, and eBay did not end up influencing Craigslist in any way. So it is hard to paint it as much of a victory. [1]
And whatever you think of craigslists slow, stodgy UX and feature set, it is hard to imagine if eBay had gained control having some positive impact on the site’s destiny apart from some comparably exploitive direction.
Ebay wanted first to make money off craigslist, and failing that to get info that would allow their competing biz to do so.
The lawsuit also involved reversing the staggered board elections craigslist put in place specifically to prevent eBay from gaining access to confidential material.
Both the share dilution and board procedural change were done in response to ebay’s surprise launch of an attempted direct competitor to craigslist.
Both sides claimed victory, and eBay did not end up influencing Craigslist in any way. So it is hard to paint it as much of a victory. [1]
And whatever you think of craigslists slow, stodgy UX and feature set, it is hard to imagine if eBay had gained control having some positive impact on the site’s destiny apart from some comparably exploitive direction.
Ebay wanted first to make money off craigslist, and failing that to get info that would allow their competing biz to do so.
[1] https://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2010/09/10/did-ebay-really...